Why Frame 352?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 25th, 2006

Ever notice the underlying motif that subtly is to be found in a large majority of Bigfoot photos, demonstrations, recreations, sketches, and drawings? Ah, it developed from the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin footage, anyone would quickly answer, because everyone is just repeating that famed pose of “Patty.”

But then think about it for a minute.

There are 952 frames of the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage from which to choose. Why did Frame 352 become so famous? What if another frame from that film had been picked and published first? Today it is almost taken for granted that one frame, no. 352 is the most significant by the general public, but isn’t it merely that Frame 352 is the most recognized and imitated because someone decided of the 952 this one would make it into the newspaper?

Stop and ask yourself…why? See below, for an illustrated humorous but perhaps serious suggestion as to why this happened.






Please, if you can, do…

Thank you, and come visit the museum at 661 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04101.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

9 Responses to “Why Frame 352?”

  1. fuzzy responds:

    I think I recognize that guy with the spear from somewh- oh, he looks like me!

  2. drshoop responds:

    I think even without the illustration to lead us toward a speculative conclusion, frame 352 displays a classic and recognizable human form. As humans we tend to exprapolate and describe things we cannot explain into anthropomorphic terms, making them less frightening to our psyches.

  3. matty777 responds:

    When people try to debunk the patty film. It amazes me they do not take in account the thickness of the torso. If you look at the picture comparison, Patty is twice as thick as a human in the costume and one more thing. If you were going to make a costume, would you really make a female. look at patty walk in a frame for frame movement. obviously a female with breast. What do you think?

  4. Tube responds:

    “Notice the arms”, could also read “Notice the lack of loincloth”.

  5. Stosh responds:

    The picture next to “Patty” is my son, Stosh Jr, dressed up as Santa Bigfoot. He is showing everyone how to dance the Hokey-Pokey at our annual Halloween in June party. By the way fuzzy, the first guy in the line with you looks just like me.

  6. cryptohunter65 responds:

    This side-by-side comparison gives a graphic representation of a point Grover Krantz made many times. The BBC creature is turning it’s head and looking over it’s shoulder. The Patterson creature has turned it’s whole upper body. People can turn their heads to look over their shoulder, apes can’t. We are looking back over a 40 year span and trying to prove or disprove this film. The problem is that we look at it with 40 years of technological advances imprinted in our minds. Many people say that this could be or that could be. What they forget is that while it could be know, in 1967 the technology wasn’t there. Very few of us can look at this film with our minds geared purely to 1967. I know I can’t, hell I was only two years old.

  7. Brindle responds:

    Patty is swinging her arms in a very human like pose. Do any other critters swing there arms in very wide arcs like a human in a hurry does?

  8. jamin19 responds:

    If I were to think that possibly the PGF film was authentic, than of all of the frames of the PGF film, frame 352, is of the most memorable because it allows viewers to imagine the possiblity of a new species inhabiting this planet, which would be of the most closly related to our species than any other species. And, the subject in frame 352 shows more human traits in that frame than any other frame on the film. That is what I thought the first time I saw the film.

  9. dewhurst responds:

    I was always of the opinion that frame 352 was so popular because we get to see more of Patty’s face than in any of the other shots.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.